« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Gravity

  • 44 Replies
  • 9024 Views
*

Gabe

  • 485
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity
« Reply #30 on: December 13, 2007, 04:45:24 AM »
Quote from: Trekky0623 on December 13, 2007, 04:42:30 AM
Why not call it a force?  What would you call something that causes objects to move towards each other?

FE'ers love fixating on the fact that officially it isn't a force, to pull threads offf topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_forces#Gravity_as_a_fictitious_force
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #31 on: December 13, 2007, 06:00:51 AM »
Quote from: cbarnett97 on December 12, 2007, 10:02:23 PM
no the accurate measurment of wieght for "pounds" would be "slugs" a pound is a unit of mass.
I order everything in lbf.  As a matter of fact, so does everyone around here.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity
« Reply #32 on: December 13, 2007, 06:22:04 AM »
A pound is not a unit of mass.  It is a measurement of force.
Logged
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-73
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Gravity
« Reply #33 on: December 13, 2007, 06:30:57 AM »
It can be used as either, lbm or lbf.
Logged
If you can't argue both sides, y!ou undersstaand neither
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Gravity
« Reply #34 on: December 13, 2007, 06:32:49 AM »
I thought so too.
Logged
Quote from: eric bloedow on January 08, 2008, 04:03:12 PM
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness
*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Gravity
« Reply #35 on: December 13, 2007, 01:08:48 PM »
Quote from: Trekky0623 on December 13, 2007, 04:42:30 AM
Why not call it a force?
If it is a force, then what causes it? Every force must come from an external agent. But, apparently for gravity, there is none. It just come from nowhere.

Quote from: Trekky0623 on December 13, 2007, 04:42:30 AM
What would you call something that causes objects to move towards each other?
Newton's gravitation.
Logged
?

GazMcB

  • 135
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity
« Reply #36 on: December 13, 2007, 02:47:46 PM »
I'm just wondering though, if gravity is not a force and is just an effect of acceleration, then how does it account for how things on earth have actualy weight, and how things differ in weight?  I expect there's an explanation it's been discussed before, just haven't found it.
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #37 on: December 13, 2007, 02:49:59 PM »
Things differ in weight due to differing mass.  The force that arises from this mass is from the acceleration the earth is imparting on you.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

GazMcB

  • 135
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity
« Reply #38 on: December 13, 2007, 03:08:20 PM »
ah right. also, if gravity is not a force i expect you have an explanation to this too, it's again about the force of gravity that planets or stars have on each other.  Astronomers have been detecting far away planets in recent years by observing the slight wobble of the star caused by something orbiting it.  The first planet discovered in this way was orbiting around the star '51 pegasus', by a swiss team of astronomers.  The planet apparently has an orbit of 5 days or something. Would this circular wobble not be beacuse gravity is a force?
Logged
?

GazMcB

  • 135
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity
« Reply #39 on: December 13, 2007, 03:21:40 PM »
just having a read about gravitation...i'm not quite understanding how space can be curved though
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #40 on: December 13, 2007, 03:46:27 PM »
Quote from: GazMcB on December 13, 2007, 03:08:20 PM
Would this circular wobble not be beacuse gravity is a force?
No, it would be because they are traveling in each other's geodesics.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

GazMcB

  • 135
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity
« Reply #41 on: December 13, 2007, 03:49:12 PM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on December 13, 2007, 03:46:27 PM
Quote from: GazMcB on December 13, 2007, 03:08:20 PM
Would this circular wobble not be beacuse gravity is a force?
No, it would be because they are traveling in each other's geodesics.

yeah i see what you're saying. I had a bit of a read about it just now. I do find it a bit baffling though.
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Gravity
« Reply #42 on: December 13, 2007, 08:07:29 PM »
What?
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

Quarrior

  • 280
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity
« Reply #43 on: December 13, 2007, 08:39:10 PM »
Quote from: Gabe on December 13, 2007, 07:14:39 PM
So why doesn't anybody consider the force of gravity to be acting equally on all of the smallest amounts of mass? A good example might be a sack of marbles. A force pushing on them externally would accelerate them differently based on the number of marbles. But if force was applied to each one separately (each marble experiencing its own independent push), the number of marbles is irrelevant. The whole bag accelerates at the same rate just like dropping two objects onto Earth's surface with the same aerodynamics but different masses.

Attaching the marbles with electromagnetic bonds would only group marbles together, not distribute force. Thus a large bag of marbles incapable of seperating and a large bag of marbles dropped and scattered would all fall at a constant rate. SOunds like gravity. Just a little philosophy there.  ;)

If you're refering to electromagnetic repulsion and strong nuclear attraction preventing the marbles (i.e. sub-atomic particles) from acting independantly then it would simply mean that those forces are greater than the potential for each individual marble to follow the pathway of its own unique geodesic
Logged
Quote from: Dogplatter on December 20, 2007, 06:24:31 PM
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?
?

eric bloedow

Re: Gravity
« Reply #44 on: December 14, 2007, 08:25:10 AM »
do you know what "eclipsing binaries" means? two stars that orbit each other, at an angle that makes them pass in front of each other (from our perspective).
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »